[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / g / maka / persia / randamu / vichan ]

/monarchy/ - STOP THINKING LIKE REPUBLICANS

They're just LARPing, right?...right???
Winner of the 77nd Attention-Hungry Games
/x/ - Paranormal Phenomena and The RCP Authority

April 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 4 per post.


The King is dead! Long live the King!

File: 61e6494be00e9be⋯.jpg (108.26 KB, 540x340, 27:17, 'Onward_to_Victory',_World….jpg)

 No.6990

Thread Reminder that nationalism is a modernist or progressive invention to level difference in society. And should be opposed by a proper monarchist.

For more on this:

https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/03/03/nationalism/

 No.6992

I support nationalism.

Deal with it, OP.


 No.6995

>>6992

Alright Modernist.


 No.7003

>>6990

It's shit, you're right, but it's our shit, so we're bound to support it over globohomo


 No.7007

>>7003

>pretending nationalism didn't work to pave the way for globohomo


 No.7011

>>6995

>being a NRx shill

Enough of your moldbuggery.


 No.7012

File: b5320dd90a99171⋯.png (161.51 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 354353.png)

HIDE NRX THREADS

IGNORE NRX POSTS

DO NOT REPLY TO NRX POSTERS


 No.7042

Nationalism is a post-christendom principle of unity(at least in principle, in practice it's another thing), monarchism is a form of government, apples and oranges. Various early nations had monarchical forms of government, even though the spiritual/religious principle of monarchical rule was already spent, while many premodern states were not monarchic.


 No.7043

Nationalism seems natural to me. People were programmed by God to gravitate toward their own tribe.


 No.7044

>>7042

Monarchical rule is not merely spent. It will be back.


 No.7045

>>7043

Nationalism goes beyond that, though. You don't need an ideology to acknowledge you prefer people biologically similar to you. You do need an ideology, however, to convince yourself that men you've never met, with whom you have very little in common, on the other side of the country are part of your tribe.


 No.7053

theres "nationalism" and then theres actual nationalism. in 19th 18th centuries the first nationalists were the ones killing monarchs and starting up parliaments because the person ruling them wasnt their ethnicity.

obviously you can have a monarchy where the identity of its constituent nations are preserved. whats wrong is insisting on the idea of a nation-state where the country is all of your nation and only your nation. have faith that the monarch has your best interests in mind even if they arent a member of your tribe.


 No.7057

>>7045

This desu.


 No.7060

>>7045

Well, if you share a monarch, then they are part of your tribe.


 No.7061

>>6990

Cuck


 No.7062

>>7060

How so? Often the monarch himself has little blood relation to you, and in the case of empires like Austria or Russia there's no reason to assume you share blood with all your subjects. Sharing a monarch with another man is not unlike sharing an employer with another man–yes, it's a social connection, possibly even a cultural one, but it doesn't make you kin.


 No.7063

File: 001bb532edc94cc⋯.png (128.97 KB, 511x564, 511:564, 21317876_294169614323676_4….png)

>>7060

>t. civnat


 No.7066

File: 1a2ecb1607814f4⋯.jpg (156.83 KB, 467x720, 467:720, c28e5406acd13f2733bb30ca44….jpg)

ROBERT FILMER & PATRIARCHALISM

>I see not then how the children of Adam, or of any man else, can be free from subjection to their parents. And this subjection of children being the fountain of all regal authority, by the ordination of God himself; it follows that civil power not only in general is by divine institution, but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest parents, which quite takes away that new and common distinction which refers only power universal and absolute to God, but power respective in regard of the special form of government to the choice of the people.

>Not only until the Flood, but after it, this patriarchal power did continue, as the very name patriarch doth in part prove. The three sons of Noah had the whole world divided amongst them by their father; for of them was the whole world overspread, according to the benediction given to him and his sons: "Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth." Most of the civilest NATIONS of the earth labour to fetch their original from some one of the sons or nephews of Noah, which were scattered abroad after the confusion of Babel. In this dispersion we must certainly find the establishment of regal power throughout the kingdoms of the world.

>It may seem absurd to maintain that kings now are the fathers of their people, since experience shows the contrary. It is true, all kings be not the natural parents of their subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed, the next heirs to those first progenitors who were at first the natural parents of the whole people, and in their right succeed to the exercise of supreme jurisdiction; and such heirs are not only lords of their own children, but also of their brethren, and all others that were subject to their fathers. And therefore we find that God told Cain of his brother Abel, "His desires shall be subject unto thee, and thou shalt rule over him." Accordingly, when Jacob bought his brother's birthright, Isaac blessed him thus: "Be lord over thy brethren, and let the sons of thy mother bow before thee."

>As long as the first fathers of families lived, the name of patriarchs did aptly belong unto them; but after a few descents, when the true fatherhood itself was extinct, and only the right of the father descends to the true heir, then the title of prince or king was more significant to express the power of him who succeeds only to the right of that fatherhood which his ancestors did naturally enjoy. By this means it comes to pass that many a child, by succeeding a king, hath the right of a father over many a greyheaded multitude, and hath the title of Pater Patriae.


 No.7068

File: fa19aba36548c1f⋯.jpg (32.16 KB, 475x450, 19:18, gp0006.jpg)

https://madmonarchist.blogspot.com/2017/05/nationalism-multiculturalism-and.html

MM on Nationalism

>True, some reactionary types draw back in horror from the “nationalist” label but I am not one of them. I would need to know more about them first. I have firmly come to disagree with the notion that nationalism was some wicked innovation introduced by the French Revolution. There has always been nationalism because there has always been nations, it is only that in the old days there were things above nationality in the hierarchy of importance such as religion was in the ‘Ages of Faith’ and of course the monarchy which the Church, generally, reinforced. That, of course, is when the Austro-Hungarian card is usually played as though this were an irrefutable contradiction of such a position. Again, not so, at least as I see it. Austria-Hungary is an often abused whipping boy on the subject which both sides like to throttle, some nationalists holding it up as an example that “multiculturalism” does not work and one which the advocates of multiculturalism hold up, not because they admire a Catholic imperial monarchy, but because they think it must disarm any traditionalist opposition. So, let us talk about Austria-Hungary directly.

>Remember that Austria-Hungary did not spring forth from the thigh of Jupiter. The entity lastly known as Austria-Hungary or the “Dual-Monarchy” had previously been the Austrian Empire and the Austrian Empire was the primary successor state of the “First Reich” which was the “Holy Roman Empire of the German NATION” which had been around a very long time before the French Revolution, before Westphalia, before Luther and the Protestants and anything else you want to point to as being the origin of that terrible bogeyman known as nationalism. Austria-Hungary and its predecessor states had been around long before nationalism had become all the rage but certainly not before such a thing as nationalism had existed. Nationalism, again, is nothing new, it is not a recent or innovative concept. It has always been there, it is only that it has shifted, depending on the circumstances, around in the hierarchy of priorities for peoples and princes.

>Even in the Middle Ages, people knew that an Italian was not a German and a German was not a Spaniard and a Spaniard was not a Frenchman and a Frenchman was not an Englishman. If you like, nationalism was often not seen as important but only by those people for whom it was not under threat or for whom there was some greater struggle underway over something that was even more important to them. However, that does not mean it did not exist or just because it was not their top priority did not mean that it didn’t matter to them at all. During the Middle Ages, religion was generally held as more important than anything else, yet because almost the whole of Europe was Catholic, religion was not always the primary issue. When the English invaded France during the Hundred Years War, the French did not think having an English king and English lords was acceptable since they were all Catholics. No, they were determined to drive the English out of their country and have France for the French, which they ultimately did.


 No.7071

File: 2bf6c34a324564f⋯.png (52.5 KB, 636x504, 53:42, Aristotle-on-whole.png)

Okay, now that I have posted these two >>7066 (You) & >>7068 (You) – I am going to elaborate on a few things first.

The pre-societal individual prominent in social contract theories is held against the Aristotelian and Patriarchalist view where man is born sociable. If you read maistre (yeah yeah, but maistre-poster, what do you think about Burke?) 's 'Against Rousseau', he debunks the pre-societal individual as there being no such thing as a primitive man – because man was made for civilization. With Aristotle's analysis of a hand separated from the body, the principle of unity is how the whole exists over partiality. A man does not sprout up like a mushroom; he is born with a heritage, a family and a nation. There are such things as races and race is a broader category. Nations exist as a heritage; and heritage is a tradition of loyalty, with the foundation stone of these families, to the concept of nations as extended heritage between other families with a shared loyalty. This shared loyalty is a common culture, where these communities exist and build off each other as an identity. Nations are naturally the design of birth, being raised into a culture and a heritage. Nations are often within the broad category of race, seeing as how the national heritage depends on the bond of these families. Two nationalities of the same race can intermix and a man of a different heritage is able to move to another nation and establish a new heritage. His heritage will remain the same because he had a heritage of loyalty to his previous fatherland. Race is a social glue making it easier for the many to coalesce together and form healthy societies…


 No.7072

File: d7764353bde7214⋯.jpg (506.52 KB, 739x564, 739:564, leviathan.jpg)

There is popular sovereignty and then popular sovereigns. A popular sovereign is a national patriarch, and popular sovereignty is the belief of the sovereignty of the People. It's true that there is the ruler and the ruled. I don't cross off one side of the relationship – there is a people whether you like it or not. They are a component of sovereignty as with both ruler and ruled.

>>7062

Language, religion, blood/race, origin, and heritage. It does not need an ideology. It is a common social bond. My opinion is that dynastic patriotism doesn't have to strike at odds with nationalism. A patriarch is capable of leading a nation and even if a foreign monarch of the same race came to establish a dynasty, if they adopted the culture and heritage of a nation – it doesn't offend very much down the road. This is how people of the same racial origin move between nations and start families too. Your origin does not change, but your new blood will if they are raised in a foreign culture.


 No.7073

>>7072

>Language, religion, blood/race, origin, and heritage. It does not need an ideology. It is a common social bond

The way I see it, those things are desirable by virtue of biology, the inherent in-group preference we all have. Nationalism is the act of taking certain in-group preferences and turning them into ideology; there's more to it than self-separating into distinct groups, as that's something that people will do even in anarchy. Nationalism is specifically taking those common social bonds, and turning them into a sort of belief system, the nation uber alles. While I much prefer this state of affairs to globalist nonsense, I believe that prolonged participation within such an ideology will eventually pervert it. The notion that anything in favor of the nation favors one's own in-group preference (what would be a mostly true statement initially) will often be used as a bludgeon against the people, in order to convince them that actions very clearly against their in-group preference and their own interests are in fact to their benefit, because it benefits "the nation." Generally, it is republican rulers who make proclamations such as this. This brand of ideology is very much a spawn of the French Revolution, the "nationalism" which you and MM describe of days past is not what I would call nationalism, but simple biological in-group preference.


 No.7074

File: 0bd50c3a77f9494⋯.jpg (43.85 KB, 671x347, 671:347, wilhelm_ii_quote_99.jpg)

>>7073

>The notion that anything in favor of the nation favors one's own in-group preference (what would be a mostly true statement initially) will often be used as a bludgeon against the people, in order to convince them that actions very clearly against their in-group preference and their own interests are in fact to their benefit, because it benefits "the nation."

> This brand of ideology is very much a spawn of the French Revolution, the "nationalism" which you and MM describe of days past is not what I would call nationalism, but simple biological in-group preference.

This is true and it is where I step aside from those nationalists. Generally, that each ethnic group should belong to one state; I don't think it has to be this way either. There are many ways I would disagree with the typical nationalist. National socialists, for example, reject dynastic patriotism. I'll admit it is somewhat unconventional to what a republican would support and what I would support. The republicans talk about benefiting "the nation" because they believe in popular sovereignty and "the nation" is just another word for "the People".


 No.7083

There are monarchists see only the ruler aspect of a nation. It is a mistake to only acknowledge the familial view as rootless and cosmopolitan with no origin. Then the anarchists and libertarians who view national identity as statism. There are and there were nations all around the globe and the concept of a national identity pre-exists the French Revolution. There are people and rulers; just because the nationalist takes the stance that the people who are ruled are also the people who are rulers doesn't mean there are no nationalities outside these states. As a monarchist who favors nationalism, it is clear my views on what a nation is are different from the conventional republican views. I don't call this common identity a "biological in-group preference", I call it a nation. It is important to realize how one group wants to eliminate the notion that there is a particular people being ruled over and the other wants to deny there are rulers.


 No.7084

File: 876d2ef86843b6b⋯.png (283.6 KB, 1062x392, 531:196, Maistre_Sovereignty_3_99.png)

>>7071

Okay, looking back, a 'heritage of loyalty' sounds spergy, but let me set this straight. I believe think this screencap related… There is no bee hive without a bee queen. Got it?

>If sovereignty is not anterior to the people, at least these two ideas are collateral, since a sovereignty is necessary to make a people

>for by virtue of the eternal laws of the nature, a swarm of bees exists in this way or it does not exist at all. Society and sovereignty are thus born together.

As for the Aristotle screencap, I guess it might sound pretty wild to say that the state exists prior to family and individual. I definitely value the family as the model. It is just that Aristotle's view of a state is not what is understood as a state today. His first component of a state beings with the family in the household. This idea of a state begins with the family and I strongly agree that this component is the most important. This notion of a state is more like a society.


 No.7087

File: 3b63601ef6b052a⋯.jpg (43.87 KB, 1000x712, 125:89, _126438692.jpg)

>>6990

>nationalism

Outdated and hateful.

Sexual alignment trumps nationalism now.


 No.7088

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.

LOVE > HATE


 No.7089

File: 322d6c04e93b477⋯.mp4 (12.01 MB, 640x360, 16:9, All You Need Is Love(1).mp4)

Life is too short to hate.


 No.7279

>>7007

Nationalism is literally the opposite of globalism. Nationalist movements showed up in opposition to Imperialism, which was itself a form of proto-globalism.


 No.7281

>>7279

Nationalism is in opposition to globalism, it is not the opposite of globalism. The opposite of globalism would be traditionalism focused only on one's family, and one's immediate community–and when I say community, I mean a quantity of people smaller than your Dunbar number. Nationalism requires you to put ideology beyond family, and identify with the desires and mechanisms of strangers that happen to share a phenotype and region with you. Ultimately, this is just watered-down globalism–globalism is nationalism, but the common region is all of Earth and the common phenotype is Homo Sapiens. I'll take nationalism over globalism any day of the week, but I won't pretend it's not also a product of these degenerated republican times, and merely a poor substitute for proper reactionary traditionalism.


 No.7284

>>7279

>Nationalism is literally the opposite of globalism.

>He thinks nationalism has nothing to do with leveling difference despite actual history

>Nationalist movements showed up in opposition to Imperialism, which was itself a form of proto-globalism.

Yeah, about that. Those "nationalist" movements you speak of that actually can be called nationalist would just about always be infected with Western ideals. See the Soviet Union's antics, Amerifat's antics, etc.


 No.7285

File: d4d6a205e6a1036⋯.jpg (84.04 KB, 800x1067, 800:1067, 24912904981249801249801248….jpg)

>>7281

ORTHODOXY, AUTOCRACY, AND NATIONALITY


 No.7286

>>7281

Nationalism is about shared values, culture, etc. It's more than a phenotype and a region. Nations didn't just start being a thing in the age of nationalism.

>>7284

>>He thinks nationalism has nothing to do with leveling difference despite actual history

How is that in any way related to what I said?

>Yeah, about that. Those "nationalist" movements you speak of that actually can be called nationalist would just about always be infected with Western ideals. See the Soviet Union's antics, Amerifat's antics, etc.

And how is that relevant to my point that nationalism was a reaction against what was essentially proto-globalism?


 No.7287

File: b39ca5aa129132e⋯.jpeg (31.43 KB, 480x300, 8:5, NvBQzQNjv4BqloknHev3kDuS2….jpeg)

I'm going to explain how you can be a monarchist and a nationalist in two seconds. I don't care what you call "traditionalism" and "Enlightenment". A monarchist has reasons to support their nation.

Brexit is the first example. Supporting the sovereignty of Britain obviously means support for the Queen over Brussels; supporting a sovereign Queen over EU parliament. Obviously, support for Brexit is also support for the Queen, seeing as how it re-asserts Britain as a nation and Her Queen.


 No.7290

File: 2aa8681146f1649⋯.jpg (126.53 KB, 800x533, 800:533, DTiWh2SVAAAPodv.jpg)

>>7286

>And how is that relevant to my point that nationalism was a reaction against what was essentially proto-globalism?

There is nothing wrong with imperialism, though. I am probably one of the few people who supports imperialism and nationalism and don't see them as mutually exclusive terms. I have adamantly disagreed with most people because their view of an empire is less benign than mine. Their view of an empire is just kicking down a few primitives and planting flags in little pebbly beaches. It has nothing to do with the imperialism of benevolent Emperors and popular sovereigns such as the German Emperor, as described before, or the statement here >>7285 from an emperor. The nationalists who oppose imperialism, mistaking it for multiculturalism, are just dorks. I don't listen to works.

For crying out loud, who doesn't want an empire?

It was already adamantly discussed here >>2989 and it's the normal plebs who see imperialism in a negative light. Let's remember that empires are ultimately seen negatively this day and age, so the conventional meaning is no longer even favorable. That is final.


 No.7292

>>7290

>There is nothing wrong with imperialism, though. I am probably one of the few people who supports imperialism and nationalism and don't see them as mutually exclusive terms.

Then you don't understand at least one of the terms. An empire, by definition, rules over multiple nations. You are not a nationalist if you desire that, regardless of which nation is doing the ruling.

There are times where empires have essentially forged new nations, to be fair. The Germans and the Japanese did it, among others. But that all happened prior to the actual age of imperialism, which nationalism was a response to. Austria-Hungary was never going to become a single nation, for example.


 No.7293

>>7292

No, it's not a matter of definition for me. It's just a matter that there are idiots out there, anti-imperialist Marxists and the other ilk, who pose the image of a big bad empire and that's how most of us see it today. Don't get me started on Warhammer 40k idiot LARPer monarchists or the other types, but an empire doesn't have to be so.

>There are times where empires have essentially forged new nations, to be fair.

Exactly.

>An empire, by definition, rules over multiple nations.

That's another definition, but it doesn't mean that the Emperor doesn't have a nation that is supreme over those nations, a nation to be exalted over others. There could be RUSSIAN Emperors, or GERMAN Emperors; or, as the other example stated, the Holy Roman Empire of the German NATION.


 No.7296

>>7286

>Nationalism is about shared values, culture, etc. It's more than a phenotype and a region. Nations didn't just start being a thing in the age of nationalism.

Tell us what nation the Romans shared with the other Italians they warred on.

>How is that in any way related to what I said?

You're advocate leveling like the liberal you are.

>And how is that relevant to my point that nationalism was a reaction against what was essentially proto-globalism?

>pretending nationalism isn't one step on the road to globohomo

There was no "Chinese Nationalism" prior to Chinamen studying Western sources.


 No.7298

>>7296

Different anon.

>Tell us what nation the Romans shared with the other Italians they warred on.

The Roman nation.

>You're advocate leveling like the liberal you are.

There will always be a people to be ruled. It doesn't level you anymore than being a member of an extended community. I honestly could care less what aristolarps whine about these days, if that's what you are.

>There was no "Chinese Nationalism" prior to Chinamen studying Western sources.

I don't care what mongrel Chinese think. Chinese are not Western. A few of us actually value the West and aren't from the Orient.


 No.7299

LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III LONG LIVE CHARLES III


 No.7300

>>7299

You scared me, anon. I had to google search to make sure everything was all right…


 No.7302

>>7298

>The Roman nation.

Not really. The Romans saw themselves as separate from other Italians. Them allowing other Italians to be citizens was driven by shutting them up. And was the first example of Romans extending who can be Roman (ala modern globohomo).

>There will always be a people to be ruled. It doesn't level you anymore than being a member of an extended community. I honestly could care less what aristolarps whine about these days, if that's what you are.

Alright, have fun with globohomo then.

>I don't care what mongrel Chinese think. Chinese are not Western. A few of us actually value the West and aren't from the Orient.

>mongrel

Han are no less homogeneous in blood than Frenchman are.


 No.7303

>>7302

I said the ROMAN nation.

Of course there was no Italian civilization, but there was a ROMAN civilization and its confines went beyond Rome as a city-state.


 No.7304

>>7303

>there was a ROMAN civilization and its confines went beyond Rome as a city-state.

>there is a MURICA civilization and its confines went beyond Anglo male stock.


 No.7305

File: 7d1195a6ddd9dea⋯.jpg (58.87 KB, 670x389, 670:389, 667681339128301283.jpg)

>>7304

We're talking about the domain of Romulus and it could hardly matter to me. Yes, there were no Italians back then, but Italians derive their inspiration from Rome. Roman civilization was its own nation in a time long ago. We're talking about this and the Roman people who were essential to the republican government.


 No.7306

File: 96be229b0627173⋯.jpg (38.38 KB, 670x353, 670:353, The-City-of-Romulus-900-B.….jpg)

An Italian nation didn't come about until barbarians became Kings of Italty. There was always a healthy sense of preserving borders and boundaries from foreigners. Hence the ritual where they marked their borders with a plow digging dirt. The Italian nationalist movements would only have a cause to unite only after generations of cultural hegemony over Italy and a reason to have a common cause. The Romans eventually did adapt and expand over the other tribes and adopted a common bond. Of course there would be no Italian nation without the later conquest and growth of the Romans.


 No.7313

>>7286

But those are the core of nationalism; do you think Blut und Boden became their rallying cry by accident? How close culture and values have to be in order to be considered 'shared' is an arbitrary measure. I share more culture, more values, and more blood with rural Canadians than I do with a resident of San Francisco, yet I share a nation with the latter and not a former. Bavaria and Prussia were once different nations with different values, now they are the same nation. It goes without saying of course that some people have more in common with you and others have less common, I'm certainly not denying that. But the delineation of commonality, the mark which determines how close is close enough, is arbitrary. Clearly Abdul Al-Goatfucker cannot share a nation with John Smith. But what about a Frenchman and a Belgian? A Spaniard and a Portuguese? A Swiss and a Liechtensteiner? Or what about the South Slavs, that are closer in genes, culture, and value to one another than separate provinces of most nations, yet hate each other with an unrivaled burning passion? Nationalism offers no internally consistent definition that would allow one to answer these questions based on anything more than personal intuition. And even if it did, that doesn't address the core complaint: I have no reason to invest myself in the welfare of people outside of my immediate community that isn't imparted by ideology. I can't truly identify with more people than my Dunbar number. My transaction costs with people that are similar to me will be much lower than they are with people that are different from me, and because of that I will overwhelmingly prefer the company of a stranger that looks and thinks like me to a stranger that doesn't look like me and doesn't think like me, but they are ultimately both strangers.

>>7287

That's not a reason for a monarchist to be nationalist, though. It's a very good reason to support nationalism over globo-homo, but one need not be ideologically invested in nationalism to acknowledge that it is preferable to globalism.

>>7290

If you support monarchy, there is one thing inherently wrong with imperialism: It makes your monarchy less stable and shorter-lived.


 No.7316

File: 6b93da3f2c1129f⋯.jpg (132.98 KB, 768x768, 1:1, DTiutC9UQAEo7aF.jpg)

>>7313

Sure, you could have a commune or covenant community instead, but what a San Franciscan shares with the other American is a loyalty and a history in their nation. His ancestors might have fought a cause in wars as another's ancestors had, or the American might share knowledge or relative American subcultures. I would probably disagree because a Canadian does have a bit of a cultural drift more likely than most Americans, even if there's disagreement in political thought.

>But what about a Frenchman and a Belgian?

For Walloon, yes, but a Belgian has a king and a few differences. A king does unite differences and achieves a common heritage.

>A Spaniard and a Portuguese?

Language. A history divides them as well.

>A Swiss and a Liechtensteiner?

Different loyalties and history.

>Or what about the South Slavs, that are closer in genes, culture, and value to one another than separate provinces of most nations, yet hate each other with an unrivaled burning passion?

Religious turmoil, historical grievances and a few wars.

>That's not a reason for a monarchist to be nationalist, though.

No, I think it is sufficient. A nation and a monarch can mutually advance their interests.

>If you support monarchy, there is one thing inherently wrong with imperialism: It makes your monarchy less stable and shorter-lived.

Throughout the history of man, there is a single thing proven: everything breaks and dies. All that matters is our history defines us.


 No.7317

>>7302

>The Romans saw themselves as separate from other Italians

Every single people in Europe ~2000 years ago considered their tribal identities before bigger types of identities, Teutones didn't see themselves as being the same as Ubii either, doesn't mean they didn't look around for whatever people were more or less like them. For that matter, Romans(Quirites), fought an extremely bloody war with Latins, literally one of their major, if not the major founding ethnicity of their own people.

Contemporary central Italians even had essentially the same original archaic triad of Gods as Romans.

Italians are one of the only people, if not the only people aside from Greeks I guess who can boast about having ~2000 years old references to their own people, like in Catullus first Poem

>"Corneli tibi namque tu solebas

>meas esse aliquid putare nugas

>iam tum cum ausus es unus Italorum

>omne aevum tribus explicare cartis"

>"To you, Cornelius, for you were accustomed

>to think that my nonsense was something,

>then already when you alone of Italians

>dared to unfold every age in three papyrus rolls"

Mind you, this was a north Italic born in Verona talking about the work of another north Italian, the use of the noun "Italus" to designate someone else not even born far from Verona instead of his specific tribe to me is significant.


 No.7320

>>7316

It's highly debatable whether San Franciscans have loyalty to anything besides their own dopamine rush, but that's another debate entirely. And Canadians have drifted, but so have individual states. Many states in the northeast US are closer to rural Canada in their dialect and mannerisms than they are to the heartland US. Or on the subject of Canada, different regions within Canada speak different languages, yet are considered part of the nation.

>loyalties and history

Once again, these are extremely fickle and arbitrary things. At the instant before the HRE seceded from the HRE, they had neither different loyalties nor a different history. For the first few years after they seceded, they might have had different loyalties, but most of their history was still as part of the HRE, and their culture was still very reminiscent of the HRE. Hell, just look within Switzerland. There are four languages spoken within the cantons, and the east of the country is culturally different from the west, yet they are the same nation. Or, take an example from the other side: Poland has spent more of its history as a province of either Russia, Germany, or both than it has as a sovereign state. The Polish language was methodically suppressed for quite some time in favor of these language. If history is your delineation, then by all rights Poland is not a nation and should not exist. And yet, nationalism is stronger in Poland than it is in most parts of Europe. Because it is so arbitrary, it is not accurate to say the nation is an organic or intrinsic property of any people. Rather, it is pure ideology, a post hoc definition used by republican politicians and partisans to seize power and advance their interests.

>No, I think it is sufficient. A nation and a monarch can mutually advance their interests.

Allow me to quote my previous post:

<It's a very good reason to support nationalism over globo-homo, but one need not be ideologically invested in nationalism to acknowledge that it is preferable to globalism.

It does not follow that because two camps may work together in some circumstances that they are the same camp.

>Throughout the history of man, there is a single thing proven: everything breaks and dies.

And some things break faster than others. And of those things that do break, some break less violently than others, and have the possibility of being repaired. It doesn't follow that because death is inevitable, you should overeat and snort cocaine until you keel over at the ripe old age of 45. How the life is lived is significant, as well as the legacy left after death.


 No.7324

>>7293

What Marxists think has no bearing on me.

>but it doesn't mean that the Emperor doesn't have a nation that is supreme over those nations

That's not nationalism. A nationalist monarchist believes nations should have their own monarchs, rather than be subjected to the monarch of another.

>You're advocate leveling like the liberal you are

This still looks like a non-sequitur to me.

>There was no "Chinese Nationalism" prior to Chinamen studying Western sources.

China has always been an empire.

>>7313

I oversimplified a bit, but the word nation in its technical sense does not mean sovereign state. The USA is a psuedo-nation-state.


 No.7325

>>7324

I'm aware that there is some distinction between a nation and the governing state. But that doesn't change my driving point, which is that the line between what is a nation and what isn't a nation is arbitrary, the product of ideology and political expediency, rather than something intrinsic to populations.


 No.7326

>>7325

It's not always clear cut, but that doesn't make it arbitrary. Regardless, the big nationalist movements that came about as a reaction to imperialism usually WERE fairly clear cut. Using it as an example again, Austria-Hungary really can't be reasonably portrayed as having been a united people.


 No.7334

File: 5d9b5fabcd4569e⋯.jpg (41.71 KB, 435x604, 435:604, 5d9b5fabcd4569e6897af60d3a….jpg)

>>7287

>It's highly debatable whether San Franciscans have loyalty to anything besides their own dopamine rush

San Francisco remains an American city as far as I know. Maybe it will eventually lend way to another nation, but as far as I know San Francisco remains a part of the US nation and San Franciscans haven't left. That's good enough for me.

>Many states in the northeast US are closer to rural Canada in their dialect and mannerisms than they are to the heartland US.

That's the case of a historical divide from the Revolutionary War. Yes, two peoples have something in common, but they went separate paths.

>Or on the subject of Canada, different regions within Canada speak different languages, yet are considered part of the nation.

There's no denying that someone from Quebec is different from the rest of Canada due its French origin, but they remain Canadian as far as they interact and remain with the whole of Canada and share the same Queen.

>At the instant before the HRE seceded from the HRE, they had neither different loyalties nor a different history.

It's really hard to understand what you mean here because of how you spelled it out, but the prince-electors had their own dynasties and lands. I wouldn't know about saying 'nor different history'.

>Poland is not a nation and should not exist

Just because Poland existed as a province didn't mean there was no history and no Polish people. Maybe nationalism would be stronger after a history in the USSR.

<It does not follow that because two camps may work together in some circumstances that they are the same camp.

I said a monarchist AND a nationalist, not that they were both one and the same.

>And some things break faster than others.

Centuries of imperial rule.

>>7324

>That's not nationalism. A nationalist monarchist believes nations should have their own monarchs

Maybe for their own country, but I don't see why a nationalist needs to give a damn about the other nations. A good nationalist wants their nation to be triumphant over other nations in my book. Not this hippy stuff.


 No.7345

>Nationalism has repeatedly opposed preceding structures and otherwise been introduced by Westerners

>no no it doesn't lead to globohomo

>>7324

>This still looks like a non-sequitur to me.

Nationalism has repeatedly leveled societies. Threatened preceding structures. Treated any man in a land as entitled to "citizenship."

>China has always been an empire.

That's no nationalism. Especially when the likes of Mongols and other non-Han were't seen as fellow "Chinese."


 No.7358

>>7345

>older things are automatically better

You're ignoring the issue. That kind of imperialism was crypto-globalism. It was shit. Nationalism was a move away from globalism.

>nationalists believe everyone should have citizenship just for living in an area


 No.7361

>>7358

>older things are automatically better

They're less degenerate as a rule.

>That kind of imperialism was crypto-globalism. It was shit. Nationalism was a move away from globalism.

>The mind of the modernist

Every nationalist rise was pozzed in one way or another. If not from the blueprints then from being easily enough infiltrated by the Forces of Globohomo (see the French Revolution).

>nationalists believe everyone should have citizenship just for living in an area

That's more or less what you get in practice. Actually Existing Nationalism again levels society. Has a hostile attitude towards preceding structures. Does not reliably advocate caste.


 No.7365

>>7358

>>7361

Before modernists corrupted nationalism, the nation and the state were different things. Back then, people thought it was weird to call yourself a "German", or "Italian", or "Russian" or whatever, it was a very broad term for them, kinda of like calling yourself "white" or a "westerner" today. In the past, people identified more with the village and specific region that they came from, that's why you get surnames like "von Trier", "da Vinci", "Dostoevsky", etc… indicating that someone came from that specific place.

The totalitarian nationalists at /pol/ and /leftypol/ (same shit, different names) don't know or care about these details, they don't care that different regions in Germany might have spoken a slightly different German, or have had slightly different German traditions that were lost in one place but preserved in another, or that some of these "Germans" even have a different ethnic background (such as in eastern Germany). This is the reason why language death occurs, and why so much culture and folk traditions are lost, because everything is standardized and centralized by the capital.

By standardizing it all, they want to mix everything together and create some abstract, artificial national identity dictated by the government, and of course they aren't doing it because they "love" their people or anything like that, they have power fantasies fuelled by their hatred for society, so through their specific ideology they want to act out their revenge against whoever it was that bullied them in life, and not just Jews or niggers, who perhaps rightfully deserve punishment, but also rich people, poor people, roasties, chads, normies, boomers, zoomers, etc… their personal problems become political problems, and as a result you get a laughing stock of a movement, unlike what that Hitler had when he came to power.

The solution to this, and what real nationalism looks like is of course libertarian nationalism, aka a "Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins" as Hoppe puts it, and not some giant fucking globalist empire like the EU or Hitler's Germany eating everything in sight and growing like a fucking tumour, but alas, since everything is already so centralized and homogenized right now, and there isn't much difference between cities in a country, or even between countries themselves, the next best thing we have is calling ourselves "Germans" and "Italians" and "Russians", and sooner or later we won't even have that.


 No.7366

Reminder that Cucks/Pozzed support nationalism as long as it's not for Whitey.


 No.7367

>>7361

>French Revolution

>Nationalist

What the fuck are you talking about?

>That's more or less what you get in practice

No, it's not.

>Hostile to preceding structures

The structures immediately preceding nationalism were shit

>Does not reliably advocate caste

>Implying that's bad

Caste systems are almost as shit as trying to make everyone equal in every way.

>Before modernists corrupted nationalism, the nation and the state were different things.

The terms are often used interchangeably because the majority of sovereign states today are nation-states. The change wasn't in what nationalism is, was in the nations themselves. The idea that these changes ONLY occur because of social engineering is absurd. Yes, it did happen, particularly within the far-right and far-left. But increasing transportation and communication abilities means increasing cultural interchange.


 No.7368

>>7367

>>Before modernists corrupted nationalism, the nation and the state were different things.

>The terms are often used interchangeably because the majority of sovereign states today are nation-states. The change wasn't in what nationalism is, was in the nations themselves. The idea that these changes ONLY occur because of social engineering is absurd. Yes, it did happen, particularly within the far-right and far-left. But increasing transportation and communication abilities means increasing cultural interchange.

Directed at >>7365


 No.7370

>>7367

>The change wasn't in what nationalism is, was in the nations themselves.

Yes, with increased centralization, the world gets smaller. In Japan you can take a bullet train from one city to another really quickly, it's a small country, but there are still specific traditions, dialects, and other niches to seperate each city and prefecture from the rest of the country. If it was all about transport and telecoms, then a place like Russia would be teeming with cultural diversity, since there is a large distance between cities, but every city looks exactly the same, the culture is exactly the same, and the only regions that had different dialects of our language broke away to form seperate governments.

Centralization is the death of the nation.


 No.7377

>>7367

>French Revolution

>Nationalist

>What the fuck are you talking about?

>They never did anything to give rise to nationalism

>no unconditional male suffrage

>no accepting the scribbles of degenerates like Locke and Rousseau

>No, it's not.

Yeah, we all know all the "nations" that kept away from overly high suffrage.

>The structures immediately preceding nationalism were shit

Considering how modern France and Murica are nowadays (getting filled up with rape apes, has a half-monkey president)…

Also, Old Egypt lasted much longer than just about any notable democracy.

>Caste systems are almost as shit as trying to make everyone equal in every way.

They are designed to keep society stable in a way "meritocracy" doesn't. Say what you will about India and its smelliness but it's not the murder filled dump South America is.

>The terms are often used interchangeably because the majority of sovereign states today are nation-states.

You mean democracies telling kids it's okay to miscegenate and be gay.

>The change wasn't in what nationalism is, was in the nations themselves. The idea that these changes ONLY occur because of social engineering is absurd. Yes, it did happen, particularly within the far-right and far-left. But increasing transportation and communication abilities means increasing cultural interchange.

>muh food and muh dik

How's Murica doing?


 No.7379

>>7377

>>They never did anything to give rise to nationalism

Nationalism in OTHER countries was used as a tool during some of the wars, but that doesn't make the French Revolution a nationalist uprising.

>>no unconditional male suffrage

That has nothing to do with nationalism.

>>no accepting the scribbles of degenerates like Locke and Rousseau

Do you think nationalism and liberalism/the enlightenment are the same thing, or something?

>Yeah, we all know all the "nations" that kept away from overly high suffrage.

Listen, retard. There's a difference between universal suffrage for male citizens and universal citizenship for everyone living in the country's borders. Basically all adult citizens in the US can vote. You do not get citizenship just for living here. Applying for residence and applying for citizenship are separate things.

>Considering how modern France and Murica are nowadays (getting filled up with rape apes, has a half-monkey president)…

We're talking about what proceeded the rise of nationalism.

>They are designed to keep society stable

Cool.

>"meritocracy"

Meritocracy is not a leveling of society, it's a stratification of society along merit. There's a reason the hyper-progressive academic types are completely autistically asshurt about the idea of meritocracy.


 No.7382

>>7379

>Nationalism in OTHER countries was used as a tool during some of the wars, but that doesn't make the French Revolution a nationalist uprising.

"France" is a product of the revolution. Your peasant in Joan of Arc's day, for how much she fought the English, did not see himself as belonging to a "nation" regardless of his obligations to his community and lord with the peasants on other side of "France."

>That has nothing to do with nationalism.

Denial.

>Do you think nationalism and liberalism/the enlightenment are the same thing, or something?

They are in bed with each-other. There was no nationalism before modernity.

>Listen, retard. There's a difference between universal suffrage for male citizens and universal citizenship for everyone living in the country's borders. Basically all adult citizens in the US can vote.

>Including women and Niggers and Beaners and Gooks.

>You do not get citizenship just for living here. Go look up Anchor Babies.


 No.7383

>>7379

>Meritocracy is not a leveling of society, it's a stratification of society along merit. There's a reason the hyper-progressive academic types are completely autistically asshurt about the idea of meritocracy.

>t. liberal who thinks Medieval society worked like Game of Thrones

>He thinks Clown World isn't the fruit of "meritocracy."

https://twitter.com/qin_duke/status/1128683774504505344


 No.7386

File: 3292e842ec89537⋯.png (77.16 KB, 1023x570, 341:190, M-01.png)

>>7382

>"France" is a product of the revolution.

What were the Franks? Listen, I get this idea that you're pro-feudal, but there will always be a people and their rulers. Not that they are one and the same, or individually separate, but that they remain together. This is the one democratic juice I'm willing to drink.

>Before modernists corrupted nationalism, the nation and the state were different things.

Before modernists, it was also simply understood that there were people in the state. It is true that they began to see the state as "The People", but they also didn't see it as a foreign object from outer space. The view of politics identified with a view that the family, civics, and rulers all composed of a state and were united together in a sovereign bond. Pic related and the context expressed in the earlier post. There was always a people, but the People are not rulers. They are not sovereign, but part of sovereignty. It definitely was not this concept of the nation-state, but it was unique and probably a favorable view.

>he solution to this, and what real nationalism looks like is of course libertarian nationalism, aka a "Europe of a thousand Liechtensteins" as Hoppe puts it

I wouldn't want to know Europe without empires, yet here we are. I'm not content with the libertarian version of a crypto-commune called 'covenant communties', but that's your dish. Let alone that you folks borrow the black-gold flag. Is there anyway ancaps try to be original from anarchist counterparts nowadays? Just don't copy what makes those anarchists annoying.

>the world gets smaller. In Japan you can take a bullet train from one city to another really quickly, it's a small country, but there are still specific traditions, dialects, and other niches to seperate each city and prefecture from the rest of the country

I understand where you're coming from. There is a Theodore Roosevelt speech about ditching small-town American spirit for the American nation and integrating foreigners to the "melting pot". While I see why this view is distasteful, I absolutely don't see anything to do with wiping away the whole larger scope of the nationality. I believe you can have both. And what problems we see with small towns and regional differences is attributed to an abundance of things like technology and – like you said – the globalization of the world. Frankly, I don't care what two sides of this argument have to present about muh imperialism as crypto-globalism or muh nationalism. I think both are inherently idiotic.

>>7358

>That kind of imperialism was crypto-globalism.

There have been a whole host of empires for centuries very, very long ago. What kind of garbage is this?

>>7366

Agreed.

>French Revolution

<Nationalist

Yes, the French Revolution was about "The People", but that doesn't make out the point that there will always be a people who are ruled and there will be rulers. The French Revolution believed that the People were sovereign and even the majority, a step above Hobbes, but there was always a history of popular sovereigns who were "King of the Franks" and "German Emperor". I don't know why the autist is scrambling to become a kind of anonymous peasant with local origin; the truth is there are distinct local origins and nationalities as well as far as Dante Alighieri and I would hesitate to say that these "past structures" are obscure and frankly don't have an influence. I never cared for the institutional clique and serfdom.


 No.7387

>>7386

Is also referencing >>7370


 No.7388

File: d23f18e65b37c30⋯.jpg (311.31 KB, 1267x1645, 181:235, CsxWz4hWcAEXYso.jpg)

>>7383

Meritocracy is a pozzed term people take for granted. They highlight it in contrast to aristocracy, but meritocracy and aristocracy are somewhat synonymous terms. We think of the Age of King Louis XIV, as if all vestiges of aristocracy were removed, but they were still part of the military yes, king ruled supreme and there would be a heritage of aristocrats in military service to their king. Frankly again, there is always structure in the social realm because mankind is naturally hierarchical and is endowed with the rule of father and mother. I know that meritocracy is a pozzed term and I know the turmoil of bureaucrats. There have always been officials for kings and a people to look after, crowned with an allegiance to God.


 No.7395

>>7386

>Before modernists, it was also simply understood that there were people in the state

Before modernists, "the state" and "the king" were so far-off and unintrusive in your life that you could live half a century in your little town without knowing or caring about who your king is and what your government does. As far as the peasants were concerned, their state was either the local landlord or the mayor.

>I wouldn't want to know Europe without empires, yet here we are.

The EU? An American crypto-colony? Look, everyone agrees that a few rival empires are much better than some global one-world government (unless you're a retard) but big borders alone don't make a country great.

>I'm not content with the libertarian version of a crypto-commune called 'covenant communties'

Strawman.

>Let alone that you folks borrow the black-gold flag.

Black and gold are a sexy combination of colours.

>Is there anyway ancaps try to be original from anarchist counterparts nowadays? Just don't copy what makes those anarchists annoying.

Ad hom, strawman.

>And what problems we see with small towns and regional differences is attributed to an abundance of things like technology and – like you said – the globalization of the world. Frankly, I don't care what two sides of this argument have to present about muh imperialism as crypto-globalism or muh nationalism. I think both are inherently idiotic.

Technology and globalization are still two different things. How often do you browse Japanese websites? You probably don't, despite having the technology to do so. That's because there's no central authority to say that English must be "the official language of the internet" or some shit.


 No.7396

>>7382

>"France" is a product of the revolution.

You're a retard.

>Denial.

No, retard. Being a nationalist doesn't mean you believe everyone should be allowed to vote. They're entirely separate concepts.

>They are in bed with each-other. There was no nationalism before modernity.

There wasn't any Marxism or Fascism, either. If you think THOSE are in bed with each-other and liberalism, then you're simply beyond historically and politically illiterate.

Liberalism and the Enlightenment predate the crystallization of nationalism by centuries.

>>You do not get citizenship just for living here.

>Go look up Anchor Babies.

I said living, not being born. Plus, that's by no means universal across all nation-states.

>>He thinks Clown World isn't the fruit of "meritocracy."

It's not. The far-left hate's meritocracy because it DOESN'T level society.

>twitter comment

Trying to prop up a point I'm not arguing with.

>>7386

>There have been a whole host of empires for centuries very, very long ago.

And?

>>7388

>They highlight it in contrast to aristocracy, but meritocracy and aristocracy are somewhat synonymous terms.

In centuries that was already long gone centuries ago. There was meritocracy when being a nobleman or a king meant being part of a dedicated fighting military class. That was

pretty much entirely over by the age of nationalism.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / g / maka / persia / randamu / vichan ]